Chelsea Feuer

APHG/Period 7
February 12, 2012

Hotel Rwanda Discussion Questions

1. What kind of person does Paul initially appear to be to us, the viewers?
Paul appears to be an arrogant and dominant man who is the manager of a hotel. He also
gives off a very confident demure. Evidence supporting this initial impression is his sense of
style and cleverness when associating with businessmen. When interacting with these
wealthy men, he gives them Cohiba cigars from Havana, Cuba which is worth 10,000 francs
as he mentioned in the movie because they are more stylish than giving a rich man just
10,000 francs. This also shows that he is a well-educated and well-respectful person amongst
others.
2. What event seems to start the genocide? Is the political & historical background handled
by the film adequately? (Was enough information given to explain why the genocide
occurred?) Explain.
The tension leading up to the genocide was because Belgium colonized Rwanda and divided
the people into two groups known as the Tutsi and Hutu. The Belgium favored the Tutsi even
though they were the minority tribe in Rwanda. When Rwanda gained independence and the
Belgium left, the Hutu began to hold the leadership positions in government. On April 6,
1994, the genocide began with the murder of President Juvnal Habyarimana. The Hutu
extremists blamed the Tutsi rebels for shooting down the presidents plane killing everyone
on board. The Hutus responded by beginning the slaughter of 800,000 people within 24 hours
of the plane crash. The political and historical background was depicted accurately, but
simply in the film. For example, the conversation between the journalist and a Rwandan at
the hotel bar leads the viewer to believe that there were no social distinctions between the
Tutsi and Hutu tribes prior to Belgian colonial rule in Rwanda. Historically, distinctions
between the Tutsi and Hutu were economic rather than racial prior to colonization.
3. What do you think UN Colonel Oliver means when he says, We are peace-keepers, not
peace-makers.? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? If not, why does he say this?
UN Colonel Oliver was ordered that troops were not to use weapons unless in self-defense.
They are there to stabilize the situation without intervening. There is a difference between
acting as a peace-maker and acting as a peace-keeper. A peace-keeper attempts to prevent
fights, violence and disputes, while a peace-maker is one who attempts to get them under
control once they do occur.
4. Why does the UN withdraw its forces and the non-Rwandan inhabitants?

Initially, the UN withdrew most of its forces leaving only 250 UN troops compared to the
2,500 original troops deployed in Rwanda following the murder of 10 Belgian soldiers. This
decision was made by the United Nation Security Council in order to take out citizens of the
countries in the United Nations.
5. Explain the UN Colonels disturbing comments on the UNs decision not intervene. What
do you think he means when he tells Paul, youre not even a n---er?
The UN Colonels comments were particularly disturbing and racist especially when he said,
Youre not even a n---er. Youre an African. By this, he meant that the Western world was
apathetic towards the genocide in Rwanda. The superpowers of the world did not care
enough about the Africans to stop the slaughter which is why the UN had decided to
withdraw its soldiers and non-Rwandan inhabitants.
6. Describe your reaction to the scene immediately after Pauls meeting with George
Rutaganda (in car w/ Gregoire). Why do you think filmmakers decided to film the
genocide this way?
After Pauls meeting with George Rutaganda, the dead bodies lying on the ground made me
feel disgusted and sympathetic towards the innocent Rwandans that were slaughtered like
cattle. I literally felt sick to my stomach knowing that this actually happened in real life. It
really made me think that people can be very cruel if their hatred is strong enough. The
filmmakers probably filmed the genocide in this way to give the audience an image that
actually showed just how many peoples lives were taken during this genocide. They also
wanted to trigger emotions of sadness and aversion towards the mass murder of so many
innocent people.
7. Recall the convoy of Rwandans who have obtained visas to leave. What are your
thoughts on the conflict between Tatiana & after he decides to stay. Place yourself in one
in one of the two characters position. What are they feeling during this scene? Why? Is
there one person who is more correct than the other? Why?
I believe that Paul did the right thing by staying behind to keep the refugees safe. At the same
time, I feel as though it was selfish of him to disregard his familys feelings. The Hutu Army
would have killed all of the refugees at the hotel if it wasnt for Paul who saved them by
contacting the General to get his men to protect them. Paul is feeling brave, yet helpless in
this moment because as much as he wants to be with his family, he cant bear to live
knowing that he left the refugees unprotected. He thought his family would be safe and better
off even if they may never see each other again. Tatiana knows that Paul may die which
means that she will never see him again, and would have to raise their children by herself.
This causes her and their children to feel very sad. Its a very conflicted situation to say
which person is more correct than the other. If Paul were to leave the refugees in the hotel
behind, the emotional toll on him and his family would be equal to the emotions present if he
and his family were to remain separated. Either way, the questions and doubts of what
couldve been the right decision in this situation would stimulate emotions of hurt, sadness,
and possibly even guilt.

8. How is Paul able to convince General Bizimungu into helping him at the end? What does
this say about how the outcome of the war might have ended differently?
Paul convinces General Bizimungu by offering to get him supplies at the other hotel called
The Diplomat. While they were there, Paul told the general that he was on the list of military
criminals in America. He basically blackmailed him by saying that the general would be
convicted of war crimes. The general replies by claiming that he did not commit the crimes
that he is accused of. Without Pauls help, the general would most definitely continue to be
on the list of Americas military criminals based on his status in the Rwandan Army. Paul
would have the ability to tell the Americans that the general actually helped the refugees
back at the hotel. This says that the general couldve been bribed earlier to put an end to the
war which would ultimately save hundreds of thousands of lives.
9. To what degree do we witness the Rwandan genocide in the film?
The Rwandan genocide is witnessed by its audience to the fullest degree in that all events are
historically depicted, and the horrors during this time seem to show the graphic images that
were present in real life. However, the movie is partially fictional and dramatized for the
Hollywood effect. The conflicts between Paul and his family didnt necessarily take place,
and provided an emotional trigger for viewers. Moreover, the violence that took place in
Rwanda was not fully represented for the mere fact that it was a very ghastly scene that even
the Hollywood movie industry couldnt fully take on.
10. How, in general, are Rwandans represented by the film? Rwanda itself? Compare these
representations with how WWII-era Germans were portrayed in the documentaries,
readings, etc. you have seen.
Rwandans are represented in a cruel and hateful manner due to their inability to keep peace
amongst its people. Rwanda itself is a less developed country (LDC) with a disorganized
military that has no support from more developed countries (MDC). The two tribes at
conflict are the primary cause for the lack of development present in this country. During the
genocide, supplies and communication become scarce. If people do not die due to the mass
murders of the Tutsi rebels or Hutu extremists, they are likely to die due to lack of proper
health care. These representations deal with the harsh realities caused by genocide. During
World War II, the Holocaust is a well-known example of genocide compared to the less
known Rwandan genocide. The Germans were led by a single man who was responsible for
the killing of 6 million Jews. In the Rwandan genocide, conflict occurred between many
people so that not one person could be held responsible. Germany also thrived during the
WWII-era as the Germans claimed much of the territory in Europe as their own. Rwanda on
the other hand remained a poor country without much empathy from the West. Contrarily,
the West played a substantial role in trying to stop the Nazis from killing millions of people.
The Rwandan genocide resulted in the murders of 800,000 to 1.7 million people. The
Holocaust killed 6 million people throughout the course of 4 years. Killings in Rwanda were
spontaneous and took place more publicly whereas the Germans took many precautions to
hide their actions by using concentration camps for example.

11. Rwanda was widely considered the most Christianized country in Africa. Close to 90%
of Rwanda claimed to be Christians. How do you account for the genocide which
occurred in light of this information?
The genocide in Rwanda was not primarily due to religious conflict although it could be
attributed to be a minor cause of the big picture. The main factor that stimulated the
Rwandan genocide was the ethnic conflict between the Tutsi and Hutu tribes. However, it is
known that 90% of the population was Hutu which probably means that the majority of the
Hutu made up the Christian population. Therefore, religious beliefs could have played a part
in why the Tutsi and Hutu could not maintain a peaceful environment. Differences between
these ethnicities are attributes that contribute to the conflicts behind the genocide that took
place.
12. Based on the end of the film, what might you speculate about Rwandas future (from the
perspective of 1994)?
I believe that Rwandas future based on the end of the film would be very depressing. The
scars from this 100 day genocide would have to be healed, and it would most likely take a
long time for this happen. A new government and stable military would have to be enforced.
This would be very difficult because conflicts between the two tribes would have to be
forgotten. A long road to a peaceful nation would be ahead of them. This would be
especially difficult if they did not receive help from the Western world.